feministfilm:

BRICORAMA: imbobswaget: Honestly though, why is context so hard for so many (white) feminists to understand?

farahjoon:

imbobswaget:

Honestly though, why is context so hard for so many (white) feminists to understand? maybe if you take race and history out of the equation that person’s argument re: fey’s beyonce/j.lo quotation would make sense. But a white woman shitting on women of color, SPECIFICALLY on the very racialized, sexualized parts of their bodies that they’ve been made to be ashamed of because it was proof of their uncivilized and oversexed state (big butts, thick thighs…) and which many of them have reclaimed as beautiful in order to survive is not fucking ok. Not that long ago African women were put in museums so white people could gape at their large butts, their thighs and butts were seen as evidence of their savagery, of their oversexed nature which was then used to justify their dehumanization, enslavement, rape and murder. A big butt and thighs is still seen as overtly sexual and is part of the ongoing oversexualization of woc. So given this history, this context, Tina Fey picking out beyonce and j.lo to shit on those very characteristics of theirs is ok in the name of Feminism? That’s advancing the interests of women or is it just advancing the interests of certain set of generally white women? Because it seems like the latter to me. 

#words of wisdom from based maryam

FLAWLESS COMMENTARY — so fucking important.

if you haven’t heard of Saartjie Baartman, I strongly encourage you to read this:

—Dr. Maythee Rojas, Women of Color and Feminism

This isn’t directly film-related, but the story of Saartjie Baartman is very important in understanding one of the origins of the way we sexualize (and ultimately remove sexual agency from) black women’s bodies in media today, still. Please read this if you haven’t already.